For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

.....but it is worth repeating. Nothing has really changed - the bulk of her readers are as simple as they ever were. And they were always thick as two short ones.

Some of you people must live incredibly sad lives if all you
can think about is your obsession with swinging.

This entire blog, and Textusa's entire premise, is built on
lies. She has clearly attracted the right clientelle for the most part as the
bulk of you would believe literally anything she told you.

Why don't you step back a minute and get a grip?

What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement
or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to
fabricate matching stories and provide alibis for a group of people they had
for the most part never met and to whom they owed nothing. That hundreds of
people who didn't know them and didn't owe them anything were prepared to risk
long prison sentences themselves in order to cover up for people they didn't
know. That multi-national TV companies would join in, fabricating footage for
the express purpose of ''proving'' years later that there was no ''big round
table'' and what's more they would go about it so clumsily that the ''forgery''
would be immediately spotted by a group of middle-aged layabouts watching a youtube
clip?

That the catholic church and the governments of two nations
would collude together to cover up the homicide of a small child at a holiday
resort?

Does it ever occur to you, even for a second, that you have
been taken for a complete and total ride by this lunatic?

That the reason she claims the Brunt video is photoshopped
is precisely because it blows one of her loony ideas out of the water?

Because to believe as you claim to do, you would also have
to believe that:

Every holidaymaker in the resort was ''in on it''

Every local resident was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at Mark Warners was ''in on it''

Every member of the british consulate staff plus the
ambassador was ''in on it''

the catholic church was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at the tapas was ''in on it''

All the nannies, sports coaches, ancillary staff were ''in
on it''

every member of the ex-pat community, even those in their
80's was ''in on it''

sky news were ''in on it''

Martin Brunt was ''in on it''

The police forces of two nations were ''in on it''

The forensic labs were ''in on it''

All these people. In on it. In on what you simultaneously
claim was an accidental act of brutality committed in the heat of the moment
and with no pre-planning involved.

...Tell me something. The statements of many of the
witnesses corroborate each other. These statements are further corroborated by
documented evidence such as the tapas booking sheets.

The people who were shown at having booked tables duly
turned up and testify to that. Those who decided instead on a takeaway testify
to that. Those who had tables booked testify to seeing the ones who didn't,
waiting to pick up their takeaway meal. Other holidaymakers eating with them
corroborate this. None of these people are in any way able to alibi the McCanns
- if anything their statements merely clarify what they themselves were doing
that night and who they saw. So who created this complex back-story? Because if
you claim that the tapas wasn't even open, and the tapas dinners never even
happened, then you need to explain who came up with the interlinking back story
and why.

You won't be able to, of course, because it does not exist,
but even then none of you have the wit or wisdom to come up with a scenario
that fits.

And swinging?

Let's leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no
indication that the place was being used for that purpose. Why would hundreds
of people - yes, hundreds - perjure themselves and risk long prison sentences
for conspiracy to cover up a serious crime, lose their jobs, homes,
livelihoods, children and families rather than be ''tainted'' with an activity
which isn't even illegal?

Textusa's central theory is nuts.

Because it's nuts, she had to invent even more ridiculous
ones to support the first.

Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She
told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.

Monday, 10 March 2014

Why tablecloths right down to the floor? They aren't very practical. Even in very posh restaurants they are usually half way so that's comfortable for guests to put their legs below. Tablecloths to the floor are only used for decorative purposes. They put these tablecloths to hide the table legs so we couldn't see they were different from the fold-way type that the Tapas tables have!

Sunday, 9 March 2014

Clearly driven over the edge by the news that some of her disciples have had enough, Textusa is going all out to capture the stupid end of the market. Her latest brain fart has Textusa examining a photo of the Tapas restaurant after it's later conversion to a pizza restaurant.Horror of horrors - the Big Round Table has disappeared from the spot it occupied in 2007. Oh Noes! Sacre Bleu! Merde!Have you called Interpol?Because when you do I would just love to listen in.''Hello officer? Yes, I would like to report the disappearance of a table, it's very suspicious. Hello? Hello? .....''It was a table, you demented dingbat. Not the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Not the final resting place of Kings. Not a hallowed spot from whence flowed a Holy Spring.It was just a fucking table. Occupying several square feet of space in an averagely-priced restaurant. An ideal device for raising food off the floor. Just a pissing, sodding table. It did not have listed building status. It was not a scheduled ancient monument. It was deliberately mobile as restaurants have this funny tradition of moving tables sometimes, and an even funnier one of needing to clean underneath them occasionally.I don't know what the correct treatment is for someone who believes this table should have remained, unchanging, in exactly the same spot for seven years, surviving feast, flood, famine, de-tapasing and rebirth as a pizza restaurant, surrounded presumably by a forcefield rendering it impervious to all attempts to move it, but I suspect they need locking up for their own safety.

Saturday, 8 March 2014

Have you noticed how very very quiet it's gone on Textusa's site?The reason why she has had so few replies is that she really has pushed the envelope too far this time, and people simply don't believe her. They have finally seen what we have been saying for a long time : that Textusa is either a total charlatan or seriously mentally ill.Let's face it, the penny was bound to drop sooner or later. One really cannot fool all of the people all of the time.Her desperate defence of her brainless theory has been tolerated by many of her posters, even though they were always a bit skeptical, but in one sentence she has blown her own feet off this time.And that sentence is this :

It means that anyone, and we mean ANYONE, who henceforth says or implies that the BRT did exist is in effect insulting Mr Amaral.

And that really is her undoing. Because it appears that some of her readers never really bought into the ''No Big Round Table'' nonsense, but they let it go because they broadly agreed with her other opinions on the case. They are not surprised that Textusa was wrong, they even have some sympathy for her in her reluctance to just admit that she got it wrong.But - and this is the real stumbling block for Textusa - they really do not like being told that they are insulting Mr Amaral simply because they don't believe Textusa. They have pointed out that Mr Amaral has never endorsed Textusa's wild claims, that he says nothing in his book about her theory that the dinners never happened. And they don't like it. They don't like it AT ALL. They believe that Textusa is hiding behind him and using his name to give credence to her theory.As requested, I have not published their comments. But they know who they are, and I thank them and acknowledge their input.

Friday, 7 March 2014

BRT.....drone......tapas reservation sheets.....yawn.......quiz mistress.........load of cobblers.....We demand pictures.........foams at mouth......Mr Amaral....fawns, worships...... No tapas dinners.........here we fucking go again.......Kate's book..........oh shut the fuck up you sad old bitch..........more shit about tables and photos............long diatribe about Martin Brunt.......Oh for fucks sake, I am losing the will to live..........bollocks.....photo manipulation......CNN..... they are all in it...... Thorazine, I need thorazine..... Make the voices in my head stop..........*passes out*

Tune in next week for the next thrilling installment of Textusa - diary of a madwoman.

After spending years conning her followers into believing that 1) There was no Big Round Table at the Tapas2) Therefore the tapas group never ate thereand3) Consequently, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was a huge conspiracy between all the following : The McCanns, their friends and family, Mark Warner, the other OC guests -yes, all of them, every member of staff, local residents, local ex-pat residents, the entire Portuguese police force, two governments and the entire Catholic Church ......................the silly tart now appears to have changed her mind. Or maybe not. Who the fuck knows, she'll have changed it back again by the end of the page. She wants to know why no-one has gleefully pointed this out to her.

But it's been almost 4 months now and no one has told us “Hey Textusa, you (censored),Amaral has just rubbed in your face that there IS a BRT!!!”

No one, why? Not a BH, not a “WH” and not even WH, these being obviously more polite. Why?

Why? Well, that would be because no-one took a blind bit of notice in the first place, you dozy cow....

So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, proof positive that they were all swingers is provided by this mad dingbat and her Pampas Grass, swaying away in the Portuguese sunshine, whispering gently into the ears of unsuspecting holidaymakers ''I suppose a shag is out of the question?''

Regarding the blanket, that's why they tested it for different DNA and PJ attested "was Semen" With British expert ( supposedly one of the top) claiming that was " FROM A 2 years Old BOY" who have been previously in the flat.Now is about the prodigious British Scientist to explain how a 2years old get sexually active.Better the British journalists pick that fact ( since was produced by a British scientist) and start debunking the story of that poor boy, who must have a very difficult life with such sexual disorder (??????). Instead, they are persecuting death people or blonde gypsies.....That's why we know, Manipulation started very early and from high pisition. Something that could never be explained by the "absolute low importance of a group of middle class doctors". Other reason must be behind that decision- Swing, was the only one that suits.

We'll try this very slowly for you. They found a small stain on a blanket, which showed up under a UV light source.They ran a test. It's a test for various bodily fluids. It is typically used to detect semen, but will also give a result in the presence of other fluids. It gave a ''weakly positive'' result.They extracted the DNA from the stain.They obtained a DNA profile.The profile was a match for the 2 year old boy who had previously stayed in the flat.As 2 year old boys do not produce semen, they went back and performed another test which is specific for saliva. The test was positive.So, in summary, a 2 year old boy, on holiday with his parents, drooled on the blanket, leaving some of his DNA behind. End of storyComprendez? Excellent. Now fuck off.